High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-03-26Disposed of; impugned proceedings quashed in bo...

Criminal Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 952/2019 and 1462/2019 (UmmER Shafi M. vs State of Kerala; Arshad vs State of Kerala)

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C. No.952/2019; Crl.M.C. No.1462/2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Alexander Thomas
Judgment Date: 2019-03-26
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned criminal proceedings in Crime No.188/2017 and CP No.31/2017 and the FIR in Crime No.324/2018 stand quashed. The petitioners are discharged from further proceedings, with directions to produce certified copies of the judgment for record and disposal of the matter.
Final Disposition: Disposed of; impugned proceedings quashed in both petitions; marriages and affidavits noted; required records to be filed for information.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

UMMER SHAFI M.
ARSHAD

Respondents

The Sub Inspector of Police, Vidyanagar Police Station, Kasaragod District
Ayshath Rishana
The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
The Station House Officer, Melattur Police Station, Melattur P.O., Malappuram District
Farshana, W/o Arshad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. SMT. Ann Susan George (for UMMER SHAFI M)
• Adv. SRI. BINOY VASUDEVAN (for ARSHAD)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.AMJAD ALI, Public Prosecutor (R1)
• Sri.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR (for R2)
• Smt.A.A.Geetha (for R3)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases (Nos. 952/2019 and 1462/2019) were heard together in the Kerala High Court. Each case involved an accused facing rape-related proceedings under IPC Section 376 and related charges, with the female complainants subsequently marrying the accused. The petitions contend that the disputes have been resolved and the marriage certificates and affidavits establish a harmonious marital life, and thus the impugned criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC in the interest of preserving the marital relationship. The State Prosecutor confirms the marriages and harmonious life, while counsel for the complainants supports the quashment as a remedy in light of these settlement facts. The High Court acknowledges the established principle that grave offences like rape are generally not quashable merely due to matrimonial settlement, citing several precedents. However, recognizing an exceptional line of authority that allows quashing when the accused and the victim subsequently marry and the victim herself supports the quashing for the sake of marital life, the court proceeds to exercise its inherent power to quash the proceedings. Consequently, the court quashes the impugned proceedings in both cases (Crime No. 188/2017; CP No. 31/2017 and Crime No. 324/2018; Annexure I FIR) and directs disposal in the manner stated. The judgments also record a correction regarding the CP number in a later order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 376 IPCSection 482 CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Grave and serious offences including Section 376 IPC are not amenable to quashment on the ground of settlement under Section 482 CrPC (general rule).
Exception to the above approach where the accused has subsequently married the victim and the victim herself supports quashing for the sake of harmonious marital life.
Public interest in upholding the criminal justice process for rape cases.
Judicial precedents recognizing exceptions to the general rule (e.g., Freddy @ Antony Francis and anr. v. State of Kerala & anr; Jinu Joseph v. State of Kerala).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants argued that both petitioners have since married the respective defacto complainants; affidavits and marriage certificates show a harmonious marital life and thus the impugned proceedings should be quashed in the larger interest of the couple’s marital life. They relied on established High Court and Supreme Court authorities recognizing exceptions to the general rule that rape cases should not be quashed on the basis of settlements, particularly where the accused and the victim later marry and the victim supports quashing.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that grave offences like rape are ordinarily not quashable under 482 CrPC merely due to settlement. They acknowledged the marriages but urged that the court should apply the exception cautiously and in light of precedents that permit quashing only when the victim herself consents and the circumstances justify quashing; the public interest remains in ensuring punishment and deterrence in rape cases.

Cited Precedents (7)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shimbu v. State of Haryana	2014 (13) SCC 318	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that grave offences, including rape, are not ordinarily quashable under 482 CrPC on the ground of settlement.
Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar	2013 (14) SCC 461	Positive	Cited as part of the well-settled rule that settlement cannot normally quash rape cases.
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat	2017 (9) SCC 641	Positive	Cited to reinforce the general rule against quashing rape proceedings on settlement.
Anita Maria Dias v. State of Maharashtra	2018 (3) SCC 290	Positive	Cited for the continued stance that rape cases are not easily quashable by settlement.
Sebastian @ Solly v. State of Kerala & anr	2015 1 KLJ 384	Positive	Cited as a Kerala authority discussing quashing in related settings.
Freddy @ Antony Francis and anr. v. State of Kerala & anr	2017 KHC 344	Positive	Recognized the exception to the general rule where the accused later marries the victim and the victim supports quashing.
Jinu Joseph v. State of Kerala and others	2018 (3) KHC 263	Positive	Cited as part of the line of authorities permitting exception where marriage and victim’s consent exist.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Criminal Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 952/2019 and 1462/2019 (UmmER Shafi M. vs State of Kerala; Arshad vs State of Kerala) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941** **Crl.MC.No. 1462 of 2019** **CRIME NO. 324/2018 OF Adhur Police Station , Kasargod** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **UMMER SHAFI.M AGED 31 YEARS S/O. IBRAHIM, KAMBLIKKARE HOUSE, DELAMPADY VILLAGE, PARAPPA - DELAMPADY, DELAMPADY, KASARAGOD - 671 543.** **BY ADV. SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:** - **1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 123** - **2 AYSHATH RISHANA AGED 19 YEARS W/O. UMMER SHAFI M., KAMBILIKKARE HOUSE, DELAMPADY VILLAGE, PARAPPA - DELAMPADY, DELAMPADY, KASARAGOD - 671 543** - **3 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1, SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR FOR R2** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.952/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.M.C. No.952 & 1462 of 2019** **2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941** **Crl.MC.No. 952 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CP 31/2017 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST** ## **CLASS -II,PERINTHALMANNA** **CRIME NO. 188/2017 OF Melattur Police Station , Malappuram** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **ARSHAD,AGED 33 YEARS, S/O MOOSA, KATTILVALAPPIL HOUSE, THIRUMITTAKODE,IRUNKUTTUR,PALAKKAD DIST.** **BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** - **2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MELATTUR POLICE STATION, MELATTUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST - 679 326** - **3 FARSHANA, W/O ARSHAD,AGED 23 YEARS, THOTTOLIL HOUSE,VELLIYANCHERI P.O., EDAPATTA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679 326** **BY ADV. SMT.A.A.GEETHA** **SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1 AND R2, SMT.A.A.GEETHA FOR R3** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1462/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **The number of the case on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna “C.P.No.31/2017” occurring in the cause title and in the Annexure-C in the appendix page 8 of the Final Order dated 26/03/2019 in Crl.M.C.No.952/19 is corrected and substituted as “C.P.No.31/2018” as per order dated 28/05/2019 in Crl.M.A.3/19 in Crl.M.C.No.952/2019.** **Sd/-** **Assistant Registrar** **Crl.M.C. No.952 & 1462 of 2019** **3** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** **========================= Crl.M.C. No.952 & 1462 of 2019 ============================** Dated this the 26[th] day of March, 2019 ## **O R D E R** Heard Sri. Binoy Vasudevan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.952/2019, Smt. Ann Susan George learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1462/2019 and Sri Amjad Ali, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for official respondents in both the Criminal Miscellaneous Cases and Smt. A.A.Geetha learned counsel appearing for the lady defacto complainant/victim (R3) in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.952/2019 and Sri K. Praveen Kumar learned counsel appearing for the lady defacto complainant/victim (R2) in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.1462/2019, in both this cases the respective petitioner is the sole accused for offence mainly under Section 376 of the IPC (rape). 2. It is submitted by both sides that the respective petitioner and the respective lady defacto complainant/victim have subsequently married and the entire disputes between them have been satisfactorily resolved and that the respective defacto complainant/victim has filed **Crl.M.C. No.952 & 1462 of 2019** **4** separate affidavits in these two cases giving the details of settlement and also stating the facts regarding the marriage between the parties. The marriage certificate of the respective parties have also be made available for the perusal of this Court and copy of the same has also be made available by them to the learned Prosecutor. 3. Sri.Amjad Ali, learned public prosecutor appearing for the official respondent would submit on the basis of instructions that it is now ascertained by the investigating officer concerned in these two cases that the parties concerned have married and are living harmoniously, etc. 4. It is by now well settled that grave and serious offences including the one as per Section 376 of the IPC are not amenable for quashment on the ground of settlement between the parties by invoking proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see _**Shimbu v. State of Haryana**_ [2014 (13) SCC 318] (para 20), _**Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar**_ [2013 (14) SCC 461], _**Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat**_ [2017 (9) SCC 641, _**Anita Maria Dias v. State of Maharashtra**_ [2018 (3) SCC 290], _**Sebastian @ Solly v. State of Kerala & anr** [_ 2015 1 KLJ 384] etc. 5. It has also been held by this Court in decisions as in _**Freddy**_ **Crl.M.C. No.952 & 1462 of 2019** **5** _**@ Antony Francis and anr. v. State of Kerala & anr**_ [2017 KHC 344 = 2018 (1) KLD 558], _**Jinu Joseph v. State of Kerala and others**_ [2018 (3) KHC 263 = 2018 (3) KHC 663 _],_ etc that an exception to the above approach could be made in cases were the accused in a case involving offences under Section 376 of the IPC has subsequently married the lady defacto complainant/victim and the victim herself states that for the better interest of her harmonious marital life, the impugned criminal proceedings may be quashed etc. 6. In the light of these aspects this Court is inclined to considered the plea for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings mainly on the ground, as the parties are now subsequently married and it will be only in the better interest of the married life of the lady de facto complainant/victim in this cases that the impugned criminal proceedings are quashed. 7. Accordingly it is ordered that the Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.952/2019 that the impugned criminal proceedings as per Annexure C final report in Crime No.188/2017 of Melatur Police Station which has led to the institution of C.P.No.31/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna and all further proceedings in pursuance thereof as against the accused will stand quashed. Further **Crl.M.C. No.952 & 1462 of 2019** **6** it is also ordered in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.1462/2019 that the impugned Annexure I First Information Report in Crime No.324/2018 of Adhur Police Station, Kasaragod and all further proceedings in pursuance thereof as against the petitioner/accused will stand quashed. The respective petitioner will produce the certified copy of this judgment before the investigating officer concerned and the Court below concerned for necessary information. With these observations and directions both the above Criminal Miscellaneous Cases will stand finally disposed of. ## **Sd/-** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **JUDGE** mpm The number of the case on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna shown as “CP.No.31/2017” occurring in the 4[th] line of para 7 at page 5 of the common Final Order dated 26.03.2019 in Crl.M.C.No.952/2019 and Crl.M.C.No.1462/2019 is corrected and substituted as “C.P.No.31/2018” as per order dated 28.05.2019 in Crl.M.A.No.3/2019 in Crl.M.C.No.952/2019. Sd/- Joint Registrar **Crl.M.C. No.952 & 1462 of 2019** **7** ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 1462/2019** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 324/2018 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD. ANNEXURE 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE REGISTER. ANNEXURE 3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **Crl.M.C. No.952 & 1462 of 2019** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 952/2019** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE -A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.188/2017 OF MELATTUR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE -B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9-11-2017 IN CRIMINAL M.C. NO.1378 OF 2017 OF SESSIONS COURT MANJERI. ANNEXURE -C TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.P.NO.31/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, PERINTHALMANNA.** **ANNEXURE -D THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT PREFERRED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** // True Copy // P.A. to Judge